Killing Homosexual Marriage

[aris2chat]

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.

Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?

And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test.

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive?

Is that this strict scrutiny test?

Says you- citing you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Ok Syriously:

I've pointed this out before.

A major motion picture and a huge best seller called 50 Shades of Gray featured a couple who's relationship was exploitive and abussive.

NOTHING PROHIBITED THEM FROM LEGAL MARRIAGE.

Get it.

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.

Wow, you missed the whole point of 50 shades. It was not about abuse, it was about heightening sensations. The submissive is the one in control, the one that stop the play at any time they choose, the one that can say more or less according to their own pleasure or pain.

Legalizing marriage for mixed races or faiths did nt diminish the marriage of others, nor does mariage of same sex. The only way to diminish marriage is your betrayal of your vows to your spouse, be they the standard or ones you wrote. Your vow is your legal contract, witnessed and signed.

 

[Syriusly]

Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?

See that? It's your argument laying dead on the floor. Hell, there's even a chalk mark around it.

Wake up.

Read what Syriuosly wrote about a public safe guard. The law kept family members from each other for the common good. And discriminated against no one, up until Obergfell.

That safeguard now discrimiinates because a safegaurd against to males breeding is not a reasonable reason for exclussion.

Once again.

Glad I could help

You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.

Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.

As you pointed out, neither sex nor procreation are requirements of marriage. Using your logic, a brother and sister could have married prior to Obergefell. Afterall, such a marriage did not require incestuous behavior and should have been allowed.

Your mutually exclussive thought process fails you.

Marriage exists. If it exists as a law, then logically it exists for a reason, correct?

Prior to Obergfell it existed differently then after, correct again?

Prior to Loving v. Virginia marriage existed differently than after.

Marriage does exist for a reason. I suspect we disagree about what that reason is. But really why it exists- and why we have the legal right to marriage is immaterial to this argument.

But here is a description that is a particular favorite of mine:

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

 

[Pop23]

Wake up.

Read what Syriuosly wrote about a public safe guard. The law kept family members from each other for the common good. And discriminated against no one, up until Obergfell.

That safeguard now discrimiinates because a safegaurd against to males breeding is not a reasonable reason for exclussion.

Once again.

Glad I could help

You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.

Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.

As you pointed out, neither sex nor procreation are requirements of marriage. Using your logic, a brother and sister could have married prior to Obergefell. Afterall, such a marriage did not require incestuous behavior and should have been allowed.

Your mutually exclussive thought process fails you.

Marriage exists. If it exists as a law, then logically it exists for a reason, correct?

Prior to Obergfell it existed differently then after, correct again?

And you said sex is not a requirement of marriage, so how could the state have prevented a man from marrying his sister given they may not even have sex together?

Gas is not a requirement to drive down the highway, but electric car owners must still obey speed limits, because the equal application of the law is all that is required for a law not to be discrimination.

 

[Syriusly]

It seems that if birth defects were the only reason, infertile consanguineous couples might have already been given leave to marry. If cases have been ruled on in the past and defects are the only reason ever given, the state wouldn't have a precedent to use to prevent same sex consanguineous couples, at least.

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a constitutional right. That was done through multiple previous USSC rulings.

That something is not considered a strong enough argument in one instance does not mean the same will be true in others. The potential harm from consanguineous marriages, particularly regarding parents and children, will almost certainly be seen as stronger than any potential harm from same sex marriages, especially considering the reason for the potential harm is different.

The problem is the law itself.

The law prohibited all couples that are too closely related to marry because all couples that could - were male/female.

The prohibition qualified under equal protection and met the high standard of the states compelling interest of the innocent child and the innocent children of future generation.

Obergfell created new groups of potential partners. These partners cannot produce such harm either in the short or long term.

You now have the question, and because the requirement of sex is nowhere in the law, how this prohibition can be now meet the equal protection aspect, when only a minority of those newly eligible could produce offspring.

I might agree with opposite sex siblings being prohibited, but I'm not sure how that's accomplished with all the legal issues surrounding prohibiting groups from a law that doesn't first require sex?

Marriage doesn't require sex, but I believe there is an assumption of sex being part of marriage.

As Syriusly has posted a number of times, if a state allowed infertile first cousins to marry, why would it deny infertile siblings unless there is a reason beyond potential genetic defects?

If children coming from the marriages is the only reason to ban consanguineous marriages, both same sex and infertile consanguineous couples would have a good chance of getting the law changed.

No, that's wrong. The law is clear that those that are "too closely blood related" are prohibited. First cousins could, in some veiw fall outside the direct bloodline, but siblings could never be considered not closely related. The only ones closer are the parents themselves.

And, it's not just Wisconsin, many states allow infertile, or cousins that are past the age of procreation to marry.

Then the new paradox, do you require same sex cousins to prove infertility? To what gain?

Ignoring once again that Wisconsin law shows that your argument that the prohibition against incest is due to procreation.

Once again:
Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. As you noted- several other states do the same thing.
Wisconsin and all other states ban all siblings from marrying- regardless of whether they can have children or not.

Which by simple powers of deduction demonstrates that none of the States that allow infertile first cousins to marry base their bans on sibling marriage upon procreation- but some other issue.

Wisconsin and the other states did not prohibit too closely related family members from marriage then did they.

You do understand that it is the State that defines "too closely related" is, not you.

Glad I could clear this up.

Interesting though, now, after Obergfell, it would appear same sex first cousins can marry without providing such evidence.

Odd don't you think?

Once again:
Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. As you noted- several other states do the same thing.
Wisconsin and all other states ban all siblings from marrying- regardless of whether they can have children or not.

Which by simple powers of deduction demonstrates that none of the States that allow infertile first cousins to marry base their bans on sibling marriage upon procreation- but some other issue

 

[Syriusly]

Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.

As is my baseless?

Drunk? That's my line, get your own

When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.

Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

 

[Pop23]

Wake up.

Read what Syriuosly wrote about a public safe guard. The law kept family members from each other for the common good. And discriminated against no one, up until Obergfell.

That safeguard now discrimiinates because a safegaurd against to males breeding is not a reasonable reason for exclussion.

Once again.

Glad I could help

You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.

Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.

As you pointed out, neither sex nor procreation are requirements of marriage. Using your logic, a brother and sister could have married prior to Obergefell. Afterall, such a marriage did not require incestuous behavior and should have been allowed.

Your mutually exclussive thought process fails you.

Marriage exists. If it exists as a law, then logically it exists for a reason, correct?

Prior to Obergfell it existed differently then after, correct again?

Prior to Loving v. Virginia marriage existed differently than after.

Marriage does exist for a reason. I suspect we disagree about what that reason is. But really why it exists- and why we have the legal right to marriage is immaterial to this argument.

But here is a description that is a particular favorite of mine:

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Traditionalist thinking, but not a legal basis for the denial of a constitutional right.

As for your personal opinion as to the existence of the law, I would be interested to hear it.

 

[Boss]

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.

Translation: I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh! ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!

 

[Pop23]

As is my baseless?

Drunk? That's my line, get your own

When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.

Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

The reason this is important is that the speed limit was created and administrated to protect society from great harm.

The reason that opposite sex siblings are prohibited from marriage is to protect society from an even greater social harm.

Yet, what is the great social harm caused by marriage of same sex siblings?

 

[Skylar]

See how that works?

You've now been added to my ignore list. See how that works?

Of course I was. I disproved your pseudo-legal gibberish with the bill you imagined you were citing. And demonstrated conclusively that despite your claims, that SB377 does NOT eliminate the recognition of marriage in Alabama, does not remove the State from authorizing marriage, and in no way impacts any perk of marriage.

And most importantly....that your entire argument regarding 'killing homosexual marriage' was nonsense. As SB377 does no such thing. Nor does any law in any State, nor any bill under significant consideration.

What else could you do but ignore me? You don't handle contradiction well.

 

[Faun]

You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.

Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.

As you pointed out, neither sex nor procreation are requirements of marriage. Using your logic, a brother and sister could have married prior to Obergefell. Afterall, such a marriage did not require incestuous behavior and should have been allowed.

Your mutually exclussive thought process fails you.

Marriage exists. If it exists as a law, then logically it exists for a reason, correct?

Prior to Obergfell it existed differently then after, correct again?

And you said sex is not a requirement of marriage, so how could the state have prevented a man from marrying his sister given they may not even have sex together?

Gas is not a requirement to drive down the highway, but electric car owners must still obey speed limits, because the equal application of the law is all that is required for a law not to be discrimination.

Marriage is a right, driving is not.

Look at that... another silly argument of yours gets flushed down the toilet.

Seems you can't explain this conundrum you've created.

Sex is not a requirement of marriage. But a man and a woman still couldn't marry if they were brother and sister, father and daughter, or mother and son.

That's why your position is laying on a slab in the morgue adorned with a toe tag.

 

[Skylar]

When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.

Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

So that's why you think incest marriage and polygamy should be legalized?

I've been asking you to make your argument for weeks. Is this your awkward attempt to actually do so?

 

[Syriusly]

Well I don't think we should do this, I was simply pointing out that we could do this. If our emphasis is going to be potential harm to society, we can justify all kinds of crazy shit. We now have nationalized health care and we're all collectively paying for it... so we have a compelling interest to eliminate behavior that could contribute to health care costs... like banning anal sex because of the risk in contracting AIDS.

What I would like for these liberal mush-brains to understand is, every case decided by SCOTUS has ramifications and consequences and they're not always associated with the issue at hand. Many who supported gay marriage simply think the Obergefell ruling exists in a vacuum and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

I agree, including family members as being eligible for marriage is dangerous, but I can't find the legal argument, especially with a law that doesn't have sex as a requirement AND which no longer requires that the partners be one from each gender, how we can exclude it entirely.

More troubling is that those that created the arguments that lead to this paradox, can't seem to come up with a fix either.

If you are both opposed to consanguineous marriage, perhaps you could provide a reason for keeping it illegal. You must have a reason, yes? Or is it just 'icky', as you have accused others of using as a reason?

family marriage between fertile opposite sex partners can create a defective innocent child and longer term social harm.

But that's just between those that can breed.

You already knew that.

I oppose all family marriage, now present the argument against it. I can't come up with a Compelling State Interest in denial to same sex siblings.

You?

Your only argument is potential genetic problems? So infertile opposite sex consanguineous marriage should be allowed?

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose. If the courts feel the way you do, then even before Obergefell, infertile consanguineous couples would have been able to sue for the right to marry and won. Now we would just add same sex consanguineous couples to the list. If the courts, like you, cannot conceive of any other reason to prevent it, of course.

Since the possibbilty of abuse is possible in all marriage, then, to rise above the strict scrutiny test, you must prove that there is not just the possibility of it happening in all same sex sibling marriage, but that the likelihood of it happening is far greater than non related family marriage.

Can you do that?

Why do you think any of us have to prove anything?

There are hurdles to you being able to legally marry your sibling.

• You must first file a law suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- and challenging the State to defend its law
• And then the State has to defend the law. Can or will a state attempt to defend bans on incestuous marriage? Maybe Alabama won't- maybe Alabama has been waiting for the opportunity to have the law overturned so Boss can legally marry his brother or sister- if the State declines to defend the law- you could win by default- and marry your sibling.
• But if the State does choose to defend- then it is up the State to provide an argument acceptable to the court- not us.
• IF a state cannot defend its bans on incestuous marriage- then why does the state have the ban? This is irregardless of prior Supreme Court decisions- from Loving to Obergefel.
  
• But that is a big if- there are arguments the State can make- you choose to believe that those will not suffice- but based upon your posts- you will refuse to accept any argument- because your entire meme is based upon your disapproval of gay marriage.

 

[Pop23]

The problem is the law itself.

The law prohibited all couples that are too closely related to marry because all couples that could - were male/female.

The prohibition qualified under equal protection and met the high standard of the states compelling interest of the innocent child and the innocent children of future generation.

Obergfell created new groups of potential partners. These partners cannot produce such harm either in the short or long term.

You now have the question, and because the requirement of sex is nowhere in the law, how this prohibition can be now meet the equal protection aspect, when only a minority of those newly eligible could produce offspring.

I might agree with opposite sex siblings being prohibited, but I'm not sure how that's accomplished with all the legal issues surrounding prohibiting groups from a law that doesn't first require sex?

Marriage doesn't require sex, but I believe there is an assumption of sex being part of marriage.

As Syriusly has posted a number of times, if a state allowed infertile first cousins to marry, why would it deny infertile siblings unless there is a reason beyond potential genetic defects?

If children coming from the marriages is the only reason to ban consanguineous marriages, both same sex and infertile consanguineous couples would have a good chance of getting the law changed.

No, that's wrong. The law is clear that those that are "too closely blood related" are prohibited. First cousins could, in some veiw fall outside the direct bloodline, but siblings could never be considered not closely related. The only ones closer are the parents themselves.

And, it's not just Wisconsin, many states allow infertile, or cousins that are past the age of procreation to marry.

Then the new paradox, do you require same sex cousins to prove infertility? To what gain?

Ignoring once again that Wisconsin law shows that your argument that the prohibition against incest is due to procreation.

Once again:
Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. As you noted- several other states do the same thing.
Wisconsin and all other states ban all siblings from marrying- regardless of whether they can have children or not.

Which by simple powers of deduction demonstrates that none of the States that allow infertile first cousins to marry base their bans on sibling marriage upon procreation- but some other issue.

Wisconsin and the other states did not prohibit too closely related family members from marriage then did they.

You do understand that it is the State that defines "too closely related" is, not you.

Glad I could clear this up.

Interesting though, now, after Obergfell, it would appear same sex first cousins can marry without providing such evidence.

Odd don't you think?

Once again:
Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. As you noted- several other states do the same thing.
Wisconsin and all other states ban all siblings from marrying- regardless of whether they can have children or not.

Which by simple powers of deduction demonstrates that none of the States that allow infertile first cousins to marry base their bans on sibling marriage upon procreation- but some other issue

My answer, which you obviously wish to ignore is in the thread just above yours.

Deflection noted though b

 

[Boss]

..the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society..

It might also be pointed out, while risk of birth defects are greater, there is no guarantee this will be the result. A sibling couple in The Netherlands had 6 kids, no birth defects. So even this argument, as valid as it may seem, is totally ambiguous. With the advent of groundbreaking science in genetics and DNA testing, we could ostensibly eliminate most birth defects through screening potential breeders and prohibiting certain relationships on the basis of risk they pose in procreation. Obviously, this would not be very popular.

So..those 6 kids have had no children with birth defects too?

I don't know... are we going to start banning things on the basis of potential threat to future generations? ....VERY Interesting concept!

 

[Syriusly]

God is against homosexuality! I'm against homosexuality!

Then don't be a homosexual?

 

[Pop23]

I agree, including family members as being eligible for marriage is dangerous, but I can't find the legal argument, especially with a law that doesn't have sex as a requirement AND which no longer requires that the partners be one from each gender, how we can exclude it entirely.

More troubling is that those that created the arguments that lead to this paradox, can't seem to come up with a fix either.

If you are both opposed to consanguineous marriage, perhaps you could provide a reason for keeping it illegal. You must have a reason, yes? Or is it just 'icky', as you have accused others of using as a reason?

family marriage between fertile opposite sex partners can create a defective innocent child and longer term social harm.

But that's just between those that can breed.

You already knew that.

I oppose all family marriage, now present the argument against it. I can't come up with a Compelling State Interest in denial to same sex siblings.

You?

Your only argument is potential genetic problems? So infertile opposite sex consanguineous marriage should be allowed?

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose. If the courts feel the way you do, then even before Obergefell, infertile consanguineous couples would have been able to sue for the right to marry and won. Now we would just add same sex consanguineous couples to the list. If the courts, like you, cannot conceive of any other reason to prevent it, of course.

Since the possibbilty of abuse is possible in all marriage, then, to rise above the strict scrutiny test, you must prove that there is not just the possibility of it happening in all same sex sibling marriage, but that the likelihood of it happening is far greater than non related family marriage.

Can you do that?

Why do you think any of us have to prove anything?

There are hurdles to you being able to legally marry your sibling.

• You must first file a law suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- and challenging the State to defend its law
• And then the State has to defend the law. Can or will a state attempt to defend bans on incestuous marriage? Maybe Alabama won't- maybe Alabama has been waiting for the opportunity to have the law overturned so Boss can legally marry his brother or sister- if the State declines to defend the law- you could win by default- and marry your sibling.
• But if the State does choose to defend- then it is up the State to provide an argument acceptable to the court- not us.
• IF a state cannot defend its bans on incestuous marriage- then why does the state have the ban? This is irregardless of prior Supreme Court decisions- from Loving to Obergefel.
  
• But that is a big if- there are arguments the State can make- you choose to believe that those will not suffice- but based upon your posts- you will refuse to accept any argument- because your entire meme is based upon your disapproval of gay marriage.

I don't want to marry my sibling, so the premis of your rant is silly.

But then - deflecting from the arguments is all you got.

 

[Pop23]

..the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society..

It might also be pointed out, while risk of birth defects are greater, there is no guarantee this will be the result. A sibling couple in The Netherlands had 6 kids, no birth defects. So even this argument, as valid as it may seem, is totally ambiguous. With the advent of groundbreaking science in genetics and DNA testing, we could ostensibly eliminate most birth defects through screening potential breeders and prohibiting certain relationships on the basis of risk they pose in procreation. Obviously, this would not be very popular.

So..those 6 kids have had no children with birth defects too?

I don't know... are we going to start banning things on the basis of potential threat to future generations? ....VERY Interesting concept!

Not good, not good at all.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

You're hopeless. I'm focused on that as I highlight your idiocy. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to you, there was no reason a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister, even before Obergefell.

Sibling marriage has no bigger cheerleader than you, huh?

Find my quote that said that.

Did you know that all citizens must follow the same speed limit, even nascar drivers?

Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?

See that? It's your argument laying dead on the floor. Hell, there's even a chalk mark around it.

Wake up.

Read what Syriuosly wrote about a public safe guard. The law kept family members from each other for the common good. And discriminated against no one, up until Obergfell.

I would love to see that quote- or maybe you are speaking of some other poster with a name much like mine.

Because it appears to me that you are just lying about what I said- again.

 

[Faun]

As is my baseless?

Drunk? That's my line, get your own

When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.

Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

That's because his argument has been appropriately disassembled many times over to the point he can no longer explain it or defend it. What's left for him besides either accepting defeat or pulling out more deflections from his ass?

 

[Pop23]

Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context

I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.

Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.

Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.

Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law.

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry

So that's why you think incest marriage and polygamy should be legalized?

I've been asking you to make your argument for weeks. Is this your awkward attempt to actually do so?

I openly oppose both.